LAWS(MPH)-2005-2-82

BATTILAL Vs. UNION OF INDIA

Decided On February 21, 2005
BATTILAL Appellant
V/S
UNION OF INDIA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner was appointed as an Unskilled Labourer on 26-12-1976. Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him in regard to a charge of making bogus LTC claim without actually undertaking the journey, culminating in imposition of punishment of compulsory retirement by order dated 2-7-1994, which was affirmed by the Appellate Authority. That was challenged by the petitioner in O. A. No. 124 of 1997 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bench Jabalpur. The Tribunal by order dated 1-11-2002 disposed of the matter with a direction to the Appellate Authority only to reconsider the case of the petitioner in regard to quantum of punishment on the ground that in the case of some similarly placed the employees, a penalty of compulsory retirement had been reduced to a lesser penalty. In pursuance of the said order, the Appellate Authority reconsidered the matter and passed the following order on 28-1-2003 :-

(2.) FEELING aggrieved, the petitioner again approached the Tribunal in O. A. No. 44 of 2004 for quashing the order dated 28-1-2003 and 21-2-2003 to the extent it treated the period from 2-7-1994 to 22-2-2003 as dies-non and denied pecuniary benefits and consequentially for quashing the order dated 12-6-2003 regarding recovery of pension that was paid from 2-7-1994. He also sought a declaration that the said period should either be treated as period on salary or the period during which he was entitled to half salary. The said application has been rejected by the Tribunal by order dated 17-12-2004, which is under challenge in this petition.

(3.) THE petitioner contends that when an order of compulsory retirement or termination is set aside in pursuance of the order of the Court and the delinquent employee is reinstated, the period between the date of termination to the date of reinstatement should be regularised and he should be paid pay and allowances in accordance with the relevant rules. In that behalf, the petitioner relied on FR 54-A (1), which reads as under :-